Table 1.
Quality assessment for potential risk of bias
| Authors (Year) | Checklist | Score | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ||
| Cunha et al. [34] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 14/16 | ||
| Kosch et al. [35] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 11/16 | |||||
| Lantelme et al. [36] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 15/16 | |
| Tsai et al. [37] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 13/16 | |||
| Siegelova et al. [38] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 9/16 | |||||||
| Labrova et al. [39] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 14/16 | ||
| Novakova et al. [40] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 12/16 | ||||
| Labrova et al. [41] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 14/16 | ||
| Chan et al. [ 42] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 14/16 | ||
| Honzikova et al. [43] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 13/16 | |||
| Michas et al. [44] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 14/16 | ||
| Celosvka et al. [45] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 14/16 | ||
| Tikkakoski et al. [46] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 14/16 | ||
| Okada et al. [47] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 15/16 | |
| Manios et al. [48] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 14/16 | ||
| Xia et al. [20] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 14/16 | ||
| Celovska et al. [49] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 13/16 | |||
| Koletsos et al. [50] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 15/16 | |
| Jiang et al. [51] | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 15/16 | |
| 19 | 19 | 19 | 13 | 18 | 19 | 0 | 12 | 17 | 19 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 16 | 19 | 12 | ||
| Checklist | |||||||||||||||||
| Abstract | 1. Describe a brief but informative and balanced summary of what has been done and found | ||||||||||||||||
| Introduction |
2. Describe the related study background 3. Describe the specific objectives, including any potential hypotheses |
||||||||||||||||
| Methods |
4. Describe the study protocol, including setting, locations, periods of recruitment or follow-up and data collection. (e.g., how the patients are recruited, where and when the recruitment was.) 5. Define the diagnostic criteria for disease as well as the distributions of outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers in each subject group. (e.g., medication status, evidence of cardiovascular risk) 6. Explain the data sources and how they are measured 7. Explain the establishment of the study size with the confidence interval 8. Explain how the quantitative variables are handled in the analysis 9. Describe all the statistical methods used and/or the handling of the missing data |
||||||||||||||||
| Results |
10. Describe the number of included participants in the study 11. Describe the characteristics of study participants, such as demographic, clinical or medication status 12. Clearly describe the main findings |
||||||||||||||||
| Discussion |
13. Provide a summary of the key results with reference to study objectives 14. Discuss the study limitations, including the sources of potential bias 15. Interpret the overall results, including the objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from other similar studies |
||||||||||||||||
| Other information | 16. State the funding source or the role of funders for the study | ||||||||||||||||